CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 30 avril 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE0372AB5 { width:21.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBAA06C68 { width:13.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7BF4101 { width:166.26pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sAE61E8C9 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s11517CCE { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s959CEE7E { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s5B8637C { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sC5407770 { margin-left:22pt; padding-left:19.1pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .sB673203C { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sED1A34C5 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s29BE6C23 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s78B6B604 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .sCEE978D { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 17216/05 Vasiliy Ivanovich KARPENKO against Ukraine and 10 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 30   April   2013 as a Committee composed of:   Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,   Ann Power-Forde,   Helena Jäderblom, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates stated in the annexed table, Having regard to the decision to apply the pilot-judgment procedure taken in the case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (no. 40450/04, ECHR 2009 ‑ ... (extracts)), Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants are 11 Ukrainian nationals whose names, dates of birth and places of residence are tabulated below. The fifth applicant was represented by his son, Viktor Martynovych Slobodenyuk. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy, of the Ministry of Justice. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On the dates set out in the annexed table below the national courts held for the applicants and ordered the defendants under these judgments (debtors) to take certain measures or to pay various amounts to the applicants. These judgments became binding but the authorities delayed their enforcement. The applications were communicated to the Ukrainian Government within the pilot judgment in the case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov cited above. By letters sent on different dates the respondent Government informed the Court that the debtors under the judgments were private persons or private legal entities. The Government referred to the Court’s case law that the State’s positive obligation to enforce a judgment against a private entity extends no further than the involvement of the State bodies in enforcement proceedings. For some applications the Government additionally referred to other inadmissibility reasons. The Government requested the Court to declare the applications inadmissible. The applicants disagreed. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of judgments in their favour. THE LAW The Court first considers that in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their common legal background. The Court further notes that at the time the judgments in the applicants’ favour were adopted the debtors were private persons or private legal entities. The Court recalls that the State cannot be held responsible for a private company’s debts and its responsibility extends no further than the involvement of State bodies in the enforcement proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis , Ponomaryov v. Ukraine , no. 3236/03, § 51, 3 April 2008). The Court reiterates that, as it has already held in similar cases, the Ukrainian legislation provides for the possibility to challenge before the courts the lawfulness of acts and omissions of the State Bailiffs’ Service in enforcement proceedings and to claim damages from that Service for delays in payment of the amount awarded (see, for instance, Kukta v.   Ukraine (dec.), no. 19443/03, 22   November 2005). In the present cases, the applicants failed to do so. In the light of the foregoing, the applicants cannot be regarded as having exhausted the domestic remedies available to them under Ukrainian law (see Dovgal v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 50726/06, ECHR 20 October 2009). Having regard to its conclusion above the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine other arguments of the Government as to the inadmissibility of the applications concerned. It follows that these complaints must be rejected pursuant to Article   35   §§   1, 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Stephen Phillips   Boštjan M. Zupančič   Deputy Registrar   President Appendix   No. Application no. and date of introduction Applicant name date of birth place of residence Final domestic decision details   17216/05 22/04/2005 Vasiliy Ivanovich KARPENKO 27/07/1950 Novogrodovka Novogrodivka Court, 30/10/2001   33927/05 30/08/2005 Yaroslav Ivanovych STARYAT 28/11/1950 Peremozhne Gorodotskyy District Court of Lviv, 20/06/2001   1570/06 20/12/2005 Illya Ivanovych NIKOLAYENKO 01/06/1952 Genichesk Genichesk Court, 15/06/2004   17002/06 13/04/2006 Mykhaylo Petrovych KOZARCHUK 09/06/1941 Khmelnytskyy Khmelnytskyy Court, 06/06/2002   17780/06 17/04/2006 Martyn Oleksandrovych SLOBODENYUK 02/03/1938 Nova Chortoryya Lyubarskyy District Court of Zhytomyr Region, 09/09/2002   37560/06 01/09/2006 Rayisa Vasylivna FATYEYEVA 14/04/1961 Udarnyk Beryslavskyy District Court of Kherson Region, 28/12/005   38262/06 06/09/2006 Olga Borisovna GARSKAYA 28/04/1959 Oleksandriya 1) Oleksandriya Court, 29/04/2004   2) Oleksandriya Court, 01/06/2006   49206/06 18/11/2006 Yevdokiya Vasilyevna MELNIKOVA 13/07/1944 Torez Torez Court, 14/06/2004   15168/07 23/03/2007 Yuriy Volodymyrovych LIPINSKYY 12/08/1966 Malyn 1) Malynskyy District Court of Zhytomyr Region, 17/01/2000   2) Malynskyy District Court of Zhytomyr Region, 19/07/2001   21009/07 18/04/2007 Viktor Yakovlevich VASILYEV 04/01/1948 Torez Torez Court, 14/06/2004   42368/07 18/09/2007 Volodymyr Mykolayovych RAKHUBA (unspecified) Maryanivka 1) Petrivskyy District Court of Kirovograd Region, 22/06/2006   2) Kirovskyy District Court of Kirovograd, 21/05/2004   3) Kirovskyy District Court of Kirovograd, 25/10/2004   4) Kirovskyy District Court of Kirovograd, 29/12/2004